What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (6 Viewers)

Does Chelsea really have a significant talent advantage? When they played Arsenal it seemed like the disparity in talent wasn't that wide except for a few positions (i.e. GK and striker). I think City has comparable talent and Arsenal, Liverpool and United aren't that far behind. Chelsea's advantage seems to be a huge edge in tactics and consistency.

 
The Z Machine said:
My point was that you EPLers cite the duopoly of RM and Barça to be a reason that la liga isn't a quality league, yet Chelsea are running roughshod over England (and Wales) yet, "it's the best league in the world." Rubbish.

United isn't struggling as much as playing exactly how a team of the caliber should be playing against a quality opponent.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
just saw this...

http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/27/breaking-diego-costa-reportedly-needs-hamstring-surgery/

Neil Ashton, Daily Mail journalist and NBC Sports insider, revealed on NBCSN’s Premier League Live thatDiego Costa‘s hamstring injury will eventually need to be operated on.

That would keep him out of action for approximately six weeks. But he doesn’t need to have it now.

At this moment, Chelsea are nursing Costa’s cranky hamstring through the season, leaving his status for each upcoming match in question and making things completely uncertain as the season goes on. Because of this, he was unavailable for the Blues’ match at Old Trafford as Chelsea only netted once in a 1-1 draw. He could miss other big games going forward if the issue isn’t ultimately addressed.

This news jives with previous things we’ve been told about Costa’s injury.

Costa himself has tried to play down his fitness troubles on multiple occasions, saying he is able to get himself fit for matches. But manager Jose Mourinho has revealed in the past that Costa isn’t training during the week, instead spending all his time between matches nursing his muscle.

Ashton said Jose Mourinho obviously wishes for this eventual operation to happen during international duty so he misses as little time as possible for Chelsea. The Daily Mail man tabbed a Spain match with Belarus – the reverse fixture of Euro 2016 qualifying group stage – on June 14 as a possible time for the surgery. However, that means Chelsea will have to deal with a broken Costa throughout the rest of the season and he would still miss the beginning of their preseason activities for the 2014/15 season.

With all that’s been reported about Costa’s injury and how iffy his status has been for each and every match going forward, it could be something both Chelsea and Spain would like to get out of the way now, especially with the Blues holding a comfortable lead at the top of the Premier League table. Chelsea still looked just as threatening against Manchester United without their frontman, although the finishing was not up to standards.

Spain has just two international matches scheduled between now and March, meaning he could theoretically have surgery after those two matches in early November and return without missing any time for his country.

Having missed the game at Old Trafford on Sunday, Chelsea’s next fixture is a Capital One Cup game against Shrewsbury Town on Tuesday. Their next Premier League game will be Saturday against Queens Park Rangers.

 
Christo said:
Sad but true, QPR is a better team with Zamora on the pitch.
Click to expand...
He's always scored goals wherever he's been (except for Spurs where he hardly saw a game) and whenever he's been healthy.

 
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.

 
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
MUFC is basically right where they were at this time last year. At the end of Oct 2013, they had 14 points from 9 with a goal differential of +2. They were in 8th place, 8 points back of league leading Arsenal. This year they have 13 points from 9 and are in 8th again, 10 points behind Chelsea.

The differences are all a matter of perceptions, expectations and LVG's mind control.powers.

 
Eephus said:
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
MUFC is basically right where they were at this time last year. At the end of Oct 2013, they had 14 points from 9 with a goal differential of +2. They were in 8th place, 8 points back of league leading Arsenal. This year they have 13 points from 9 and are in 8th again, 10 points behind Chelsea.

The differences are all a matter of perceptions, expectations and LVG's mind control.powers.
Click to expand...
If you account for the teams they played, they're actually behind last year's pace under Moyes.

 
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the tactics and the abdication of the center of the pitch by United. I think United IS good enough to challenge for the top 4. What I saw though was a team that didn't really know how they wanted to attack Chelsea, or they were forced out very wide with few players making incisive runs. Chelsea was far better not (only) because of their talent, but rather the cohesive and disciplines tactics they employed. It seemed that the players knew their roles, and executed those roles well. Aside from picking up too many cautions, I can't find a whole lot wrong by Chelsea in the game, especially as they were playing away at Old Trafford. United on the other hand didn't seem like they knew their roles well and they looked confused. That wasn't at the back, where they looked better than previously, but rather in the midfield. Sure, that's a team gelling and coming together under a new coach, which is why I felt that Chelsea were far better and deserved all 3 points.

 
The Z Machine said:
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the tactics and the abdication of the center of the pitch by United. I think United IS good enough to challenge for the top 4. What I saw though was a team that didn't really know how they wanted to attack Chelsea, or they were forced out very wide with few players making incisive runs. Chelsea was far better not (only) because of their talent, but rather the cohesive and disciplines tactics they employed. It seemed that the players knew their roles, and executed those roles well. Aside from picking up too many cautions, I can't find a whole lot wrong by Chelsea in the game, especially as they were playing away at Old Trafford. United on the other hand didn't seem like they knew their roles well and they looked confused. That wasn't at the back, where they looked better than previously, but rather in the midfield. Sure, that's a team gelling and coming together under a new coach, which is why I felt that Chelsea were far better and deserved all 3 points.
Click to expand...
I don't think United abdicated as much as they just don't have anybody to play the middle. They're going to cause teams fits down the flanks and up front... but that central spine from D up through the MF isn't going to bother too many people (other than United fans).

 
El Floppo said:
The Z Machine said:
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the tactics and the abdication of the center of the pitch by United. I think United IS good enough to challenge for the top 4. What I saw though was a team that didn't really know how they wanted to attack Chelsea, or they were forced out very wide with few players making incisive runs. Chelsea was far better not (only) because of their talent, but rather the cohesive and disciplines tactics they employed. It seemed that the players knew their roles, and executed those roles well. Aside from picking up too many cautions, I can't find a whole lot wrong by Chelsea in the game, especially as they were playing away at Old Trafford. United on the other hand didn't seem like they knew their roles well and they looked confused. That wasn't at the back, where they looked better than previously, but rather in the midfield. Sure, that's a team gelling and coming together under a new coach, which is why I felt that Chelsea were far better and deserved all 3 points.
Click to expand...
I don't think United abdicated as much as they just don't have anybody to play the middle. They're going to cause teams fits down the flanks and up front... but that central spine from D up through the MF isn't going to bother too many people (other than United fans).
Click to expand...
That is not a recipe for success IMO. Rafael doesn't scare me on the right. ADM on either flank is scary, but I think he's best when he's able to cut inside. If there is no one in the center of the pitch then the defense can keep forcing him wide and into a crappy cross. Maybe Rooney playing behind RVP was the lacking bit but it wasn't a good look IMO.

 
The Z Machine said:
El Floppo said:
The Z Machine said:
AAABatteries said:
The Z Machine said:
Chelsea was by far the better team, and I hate Chelsea. united didn't do enough to deserve a point. They conceded the entire middle of the pitch as Chelsea pushed them so wide that they were impotent. ADM needs to cut in from the flank, bu there was no one making runs off him into the space at the top of the box. Just poor play from an overmatched United. Chelsea took their foot off the gas and thought that united was so poor that they could win 1-0 without breaking a sweat. Too bad they didn't get the message that Dowd was card happy and they were playing with fire.
Click to expand...
Disagree with a lot of this - Chelsea was the better team but not by far. United had more possession, more shots and shots on goal. Chelsea was more dangerous and an argument could be made they deserved all 3 points but to say Chelsea were by far better is just fitting the narrative to match what people are saying about United. If you watch that match and it's any other side they would say they held their own against Chelsea and I have no doubt people would say they were good for the point that United earned. Was it good enough to challenge for the title or even top 4? No, but they were not outclassed by any stretch. Ultimately Chelsea is the better side and that is why they almost won but that wasn't domination.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the tactics and the abdication of the center of the pitch by United. I think United IS good enough to challenge for the top 4. What I saw though was a team that didn't really know how they wanted to attack Chelsea, or they were forced out very wide with few players making incisive runs. Chelsea was far better not (only) because of their talent, but rather the cohesive and disciplines tactics they employed. It seemed that the players knew their roles, and executed those roles well. Aside from picking up too many cautions, I can't find a whole lot wrong by Chelsea in the game, especially as they were playing away at Old Trafford. United on the other hand didn't seem like they knew their roles well and they looked confused. That wasn't at the back, where they looked better than previously, but rather in the midfield. Sure, that's a team gelling and coming together under a new coach, which is why I felt that Chelsea were far better and deserved all 3 points.
Click to expand...
I don't think United abdicated as much as they just don't have anybody to play the middle. They're going to cause teams fits down the flanks and up front... but that central spine from D up through the MF isn't going to bother too many people (other than United fans).
Click to expand...
That is not a recipe for success IMO. Rafael doesn't scare me on the right. ADM on either flank is scary, but I think he's best when he's able to cut inside. If there is no one in the center of the pitch then the defense can keep forcing him wide and into a crappy cross. Maybe Rooney playing behind RVP was the lacking bit but it wasn't a good look IMO.
Click to expand...
yep.

but they're set at LB

 
If Costa is out for a bit- they're counting on Remy and Drogba to score the goals? Could be much worse *cough-cough-Torres*, but IMO, if there's a weak spot, it's up front. I also think their center halfs are a little prone to getting beat by quicker, feistier guys.

But otherwise, yeah- how do they hold up being in multiple competitions... I think they have enough depth to cover it, but losing key guys (Costa, Hazard) to injury would put a dent in the CL hopes

 
El Floppo said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
One of these things is not the others . . .

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1AOFihIAAAoTYR.jpg
Click to expand...
I like JK and all, but would the US have fared much differently than they did with somebody else in charge? I'd say... nah, brah. I think Germany's run under him was a little more of a surprise (although we can chalk that up to Lowe from all accounts).
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty baffling. If they want to give Concacaf some love, how about Pinto? The only thing I can think of is that there was a lot of talk about Germany's World Cup victory being vindication for Loew AND Klinsmann because they begun the project of transforming the German model together. But JK hasn't been involved with Germany in 8 years. I don't remember a lot of people trying to split credit between Del Bosque and Aragones when Spain won the cup in 2010.

It's a two-man race between Simeone and Loew anyway, I suppose.

 
Weighing in again on Chelsea/Man U, I think United had the better of play (slightly) in the first half. Chelsea were clearly better most of the second half. It's true that both teams generally attacked down the flanks. United did an excellent job closing Fabregas out of the game (at on point in the second half, the announcers mentioned Cesc had only completed 5 passes). Chelsea were more dangerous, IMO, because Ivanovic was the most energetic full back and because Hazard was consistently sharper than Di Maria. But Chelsea didn't kill the game and its dangerous to give players like Di Maria that many opportunities to play a ball into the box. Di Maria mi#### set pieces all games, but his last one was a great one. I also thought that although Fellaini is not an everyday starter for United, he's useful in a "horses for courses" type of way, particularly in games where United isn't going to dominate the ball. I thought he showed more defensive discipline than I've seen him play with before, and he was a constant threat on set pieces.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Weighing in again on Chelsea/Man U, I think United had the better of play (slightly) in the first half. Chelsea were clearly better most of the second half. It's true that both teams generally attacked down the flanks. United did an excellent job closing Fabregas out of the game (at on point in the second half, the announcers mentioned Cesc had only completed 5 passes). Chelsea were more dangerous, IMO, because Ivanovic was the most energetic full back and because Hazard was consistently sharper than Di Maria. But Chelsea didn't kill the game and its dangerous to give players like Di Maria that many opportunities to play a ball into the box. Di Maria mi#### set pieces all games, but his last one was a great one. I also thought that although Fellaini is not an everyday starter for United, he's useful in a "horses for courses" type of way, particularly in games where United isn't going to dominate the ball. I thought he showed more defensive discipline than I've seen him play with before, and he was a constant threat on set pieces.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

completely agree with all of this.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Weighing in again on Chelsea/Man U, I think United had the better of play (slightly) in the first half. Chelsea were clearly better most of the second half. It's true that both teams generally attacked down the flanks. United did an excellent job closing Fabregas out of the game (at on point in the second half, the announcers mentioned Cesc had only completed 5 passes). Chelsea were more dangerous, IMO, because Ivanovic was the most energetic full back and because Hazard was consistently sharper than Di Maria. But Chelsea didn't kill the game and its dangerous to give players like Di Maria that many opportunities to play a ball into the box. Di Maria mi#### set pieces all games, but his last one was a great one. I also thought that although Fellaini is not an everyday starter for United, he's useful in a "horses for courses" type of way, particularly in games where United isn't going to dominate the ball. I thought he showed more defensive discipline than I've seen him play with before, and he was a constant threat on set pieces.
Click to expand...
Fellaini has really been quite good in the few games I've seen this season.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

El Floppo
Official US Women's soccer thread: ***Update- Christen Press retires
70 71 72
Replies
4K
Views
294K
Don Quixote
Don Quixote
SIDA!
The Official Thread for Official Threads - MASTER LIST
Replies
1
Views
442
mquinnjr
mquinnjr
Ramsay Hunt Experience
***Official Soccer Discussion Thread***
1021 1022 1023
Replies
51K
Views
1M
AAABatteries
AAABatteries

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top